Imagine Nonviolent Solutions

Imagine Nonviolent Solutions

I heard that Obama's first job after undergraduate school, was working for a firm that may have been quite cozy with Henry Kissinger, a firm that may also have been quite cozy with intrusive and interventionist policies and practices of the American CIA.

The following is from a comment by Brian Willson: "Obama's first job out of Columbia college in mid-1980s, according to available records, was as a research assoc for Business International Corp where his boss was a former associate of Kissinger Associates. I don't think there is any evidence that Obama worked for Kissinger Associates. The BIC, founded in 1953, was a publishing & advisory firm for US companies working overseas, which admitted that in the late 1950s it provided cover for CIA agents working overseas. Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago from 1985-88, at which time he entered Harvard Law Sch."

What I think is this: our culture is fundamentally flawed. So no President working within this system would be able to fix the problems.

I like to believe that Obama is a good person, and that he truly desires change, or some certain changes (of which I am now more unsure of than during his campaign or early in his term.) But I can also understand that he might be trying to do what he thinks is best for himself, and for his family. Well, in this day and age, that's not enough. It's not good enough for people, especially those with political power, to look out for their own self-interest at the sake of the interest and well-being of others. People in positions of power need to take effective action to make the changes that will be necessary to ensure social justice and ecological sustainability for future generations.

Obama's justifications for war are completely disillusioning. Our system is corrupt. It is broken, I think, beyond repair. We need change. And I think we would be unwise to hope that it will come from federal or even the state level governments. The change that is necessary will require a broad consensus of local people, working locally, to end the serious and mounting problems that we face, problems including by not necessarily limited to: resource depletion, environmental degradation, and economic and ecological unsustainability; as well as the social problems of poverty, joblessness, violence, inequality, and oppression.

Thanking the Troops

I just posted a version of this on the White House Facebook page:

Thanking the Troops



Imagine that the troops are actually doing the work that they are popularly claimed to be doing - that is, protecting us from irrational terrorists, (the "bad guys,") whom are bent upon destruction of our way of life (we're the "good guys!") Assuming that's the case, then hell yeah - thanks for protecting us.

But then again, what if it's not so simple—not so clear. What if the truth is something different than that reality as presented so often in mainstream media. What if the troops are actually protecting US access to global mineral resources? What if the troops are actually enabling the execution of a foreign policy of dominance? Should we still thank them if it turns out that they aren't protecting us? What if the truth is that they are actually protecting the interests of oil companies, war contractors, and the likes of Halliburton, et al.?

The reality on the ground—the truth as I see it, is that the USA is pursuing a foreign policy of dominance. That's to say that the goal of the US government is to enable domination of the global economy by US and Western, and other associated interests.

It can also be rightly stated and understood that the US attack on Iraq was unprovoked. And even though the attack of Afghanistan was (arguably) provoked by the 9/11 attacks, it also doesn't mean that the attack was justified (either by law or by legitimate defensive strategy.)

The greatest crime is a foreign policy of dominance as it seeks to employ the means of violence, militarism and aggression in order to accomplish it's oppressive ends. This dominance policy is a foreign policy of might makes right, and it would be absolutely intolerable if it was being practiced against "us" rather than by "us." (''Us" in quotes because of my desire to separate myself from the dreadfully wrong foreign policy of my government.)

The above sign is a sticker as it was seen on the front door of a restaurant in Northern Wisconsin (where, perhaps coincidentally, my long beard received plenty of stares.)

So, Thank You. Thank you to those soldiers who refuse to serve in illegal and immoral imperial wars of aggression. You're the real heroes. You're the ones who dutifully uphold your oath of service, your oath to the constitution.

To those troops who serve either willingly or unwillingly, I am so sad. And I am sorry that you have been thrust into this horrible position. I will continue to work to hold our government accountable so that the military is not used to further aggressive and intrusive foreign policy agendas.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/3141396189/

CIA, Italy, Rendition (and Afghanistan and Drugs)

Something I posted on the White House Facebook Wall:

Italy Convicts 23 Americans for C.I.A. Renditions - NYTimes.com



Christine Beirne DeCamp
I just read about this.....interesting to see if obama decides to hang our CIA out to dry too.
Yesterday at 1:36pm

Todd Stark
the CIA has some of the dirtiest hands know to man....I doubt obama will change any of that
Yesterday at 1:50pm

Berd Whitlock
Unfortunately, I think the CIA poses one of the greatest threats to the health and well-being of the President. We only have to look at the events surrounding the assassination of JFK JR. to begin to ask the difficult questions that need to be asked about whom, and what, controls US foreign policy.

When the President speaks out, the President very well may be putting his own life in danger. I don't think anyone wants that. What we need to do is educate the public about the CIA.
Yesterday at 1:58pm

Berd Whitlock
Well, one important aspect to consider is that the Taliban had all but eradicated opium production. That was then, before the invasion. -Now, Afghanistan produces 93% of the world's opium supplies. I heard a statistic that opium production has increased 35-FOLD since the 2001 US/NATO invasion.

CIA and Drugs... There's a lot of information published about this connection - even a story about George HW Bush allegedly using an F-104 to run suspicious missions.
Yesterday at 2:17pm

Al Croke
Great video on the CIA Drug Trade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbfuTv6ZJ8I&eurl
Yesterday at 2:21pm

Brian Willcock
Al that reminded me of this:http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu44.htm
Yesterday at 2:28pm

Bill Halstead
I wish I could say I like this, but the grim fact is the CIA operatives are not the guilty ones - just like Lynddie England and others are not the guilty ones for the crimes they were convicted of. Yes, they were wrong, yes they should be punished, but ONLY if the investigations push on up the chains of command. It is unjust to punish the front line people and not the masterminds - Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee et al. These are the REAL criminals here...

President Obama with Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

President Barack Obama meets with Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the new U.S. Commander for Afghanistan, in the Oval Office Tuesday, May 19, 2009. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)
This official White House photograph is being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way or used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

My comment:

The best way to counter terrorism is by confronting the cause. I believe the root cause of terrorism are the fundamentally exploitative and abusive international policies of the USA. Namely - the policy of Global Dominance.

I wish for the USA to do away with this policy of economic dominance. Do away with the mentality of dominance at all levels.

I wish for people to live with each other harmoniously. I wish for people to live cooperatively and consensually with each other.

I believe that terrorism largely amounts to blowback from unjust economic policies and practices.

True security can be found through policies of cooperation and generosity, and mutual respect for the dignity and well-being of others - respect for the dignity of all people.

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Hold the torturers accountable.

I had a conversation with my friend Sarah today about torture. I enjoyed it and I am glad that we got to talk. We talked about waterboarding. I think a lot of people don't understand exactly what it would be like to be waterboarded. She told me that there has been some good coverage in Time magazine, and also in Vanity Fair, which has taken a strong stand against what the Bush Administration has done. She also mentioned the work of Christopher Hitchens (in Vanity Fair,) who apparently went so far as to have himself actually waterboarded. I haven't gone through and looked at those news pieces, but it's promising that it's out there.

Waterboarding is very serious. If you can imagine being strapped to a board, and lifted up while laying on your back to have your head dunked under water until you can't hold your breath... and then gasping for air, only to have your lungs fill with water. Well, it is truly horrible to think about. No one, guilty or innocent, should be treated in such a barbaric manner.

We need to hold the torturers accountable. For the welfare of future generations; It's imperative.

To the Obama Administration: Please, take a strong stand against torture. Investigate to find out if US operatives are still conducting torture (in any form.) And if there is any torture occurring, then put an end to it immediately.

Also, investigate the Bush Administration, to find out who was torturing, where, when, how, and why. I believe that the people deserve to know the truth. We need a full accounting in order to heal as a nation.

Please watch this excellent interview with Christopher Pyle. It's by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!. It deals with the problem of military overreach into civil society, and the importance of holding the torturers accountable.
Christopher Pyle, Whistleblower Who Sparked Church Hearings of 1970s, on Military Spying of Olympia Peace Activists

To: White House and Congress Re: Economic Policy and Tax Cuts

Dear Members of the Obama Administration and Congress,

Instead of tax cuts and consequential cuts to social and public services, and infrastructure, it would make the most sense, in these difficult times, to put into effect a net tax increase. That's right: a net tax increase. While I support lifting the tax burden on those whom, in the lower income regions, are least able to pay—it makes imminent sense to increase overall taxation, by increasing taxation on the wealthiest Americans (and American businesses) —those whom are most able to pay into public and social support infrastructure. This would directly increase societal equity and equitableness.

America's wealthiest people already benefit most from public infrastructure, so it makes sense to tax them proportionally, to let them pay for it. Most of those with the greatest quantities of financial treasure and material possessions would not have what they do without public infrastructure. Their wealth depends on the acquiescence of the public.

In other words: Tax the rich. Yes, we can! This is the sort of change I believe in. I also want to point you in the direction of two articles, 1) is recommendations for increasing revenue (to pay for economic recovery) from the Institute for Policy Studies, and 2) is an article by Jim Kunstler about the problems inherent in the growth based economic model.

1) IPS Plan to Pay for Recovery

2) Change You Won't Believe by Jim Kunstler

Sincerely,
Berd Whitlock

p.s. Please consider the idea of a "Salary Cap" (or income cap, or capital gains cap.) Think of it like this: 1) Set an amount of money that is the maximum allowable for an individual (or household) to reap. 2) Make it so any amount of income, or capital gain, over that amount would be taxed at a certain very high level, i.e. 90% or 100%.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Been kind of quiet here at In the Course of Events. I have been posting a lot of blog entries at OlyBlog recently. Lots going on with the proposal to change zoning regulations on the Isthmus. OlyBlog Bert

I also uploaded some photos recently, including photos of a talk by Richard Hayes Phillips, whose recently released book, Witness to a Crime chronicles how Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. His story was an amazing account of election fraud. Fraud that brought America 4 more years of George W. Bush. photos: Richard Hayes Phillips at Media Island in Olympia, Washington

Bush Administration Prewar Deception

Here are some excerpts from recent articles that support the claim that members of the Bush Administration knowingly and intentionally misled the people of the USA in regard to the threat posed by Iraq.

NYT:

WASHINGTON — A long-delayed Senate committee report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda.
...

Washington Post:

As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in his recently released book, "What Happened," the Iraq Group "had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public."

"The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," McClellan wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
...

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Promotional Video with author Vincent Bugliosi): Vincent Bugliosi lays out the case for prosecuting President Bush for murder, based on evidence that the President knowingly distorted the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify the invasion. Thousands of dead US military personnel and Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis later, the case for holding the President accountable for this grievous foreign policy disaster is very strong. No Blood for Oil!

"I" The Impeachment of George W. Bush

John Yoo is questioned by Prosecutor Walter Jones as Chief Justice John Robert presides, in "I" the Impeachment of George W. Bush, a play by Richard Lasser and Bruce Fein.

This photo was taken during a studio (film) production of the play that is scheduled to air sometime on community access television. I played the role of Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA bin Laden unite, who was a witness for the prosecution. He was interrogated primarily about the extraordinary rendition program.

I will be adding more photos to a set on Flickr.
[June 29, 2008, here it is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/sets/72157605768293983//June 29, 2008]

Karl Rove Doing Bad Things

Karl Rove is up to no good.

If you follow politics, then you're probably aware of the underhanded, deceitful and cruel things that Karl Rove has been known to do in order to achieve his Machiavellian political objectives. For Karl Rove, it is clear that the ends justify the means. And for Karl, it doesn't even matter if the ends are good or evil. He is willing to use evil ends to justify evil means. There are seemingly no boundaries to the obfuscation, deceit, lies, etc. that emanate from the uncouth and dimly lit corners where Karl Rove presides. Check out this blog entry from Scott Horton for more information about a current scandal (Siegelman Prosecution) that has the potential to catch up and find the "Turd Blossom" directly within, and centered in, its net:

go to original

Karl in a Corner

by Scott Horton

[...]

...In 1970, Rove, using a fake ID card, entered the campaign office of Alan J. Dixon, a candidate for Treasurer of Illinois. He stole a box of Dixon’s campaign letterhead and used it to solicit homeless people to attend Dixon’s campaign events, promising free food and alcohol, and disrupting the events.

George H.W. Bush fired Rove after discovering that he had planted a story with his friend columnist Robert Novack attacking chief Bush presidential campaign fundraiser Robert Mosbacher.

But all of this is minor. The graver matters go to the tactics he embraces. In a strategy memorandum he wrote in 1986 for Texas Governor William Clement, Rove quoted Napoleon: “The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious attack.”

But what were the elements of the “audacious attack?” As James Moore documents in his political biography of Rove, Bush’s Brain, politicians who faced Rove in election contests had recurrent problems.

One was rumor campaigns questioning their sexual orientation, adulterous liaisons and similar tawdry matters. Prime examples of this were the rumor campaign launched against Texas Governor Anne Richards suggesting she was a lesbian, and even more pointedly, the curious telephone push-polling during the decisive 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina, suggesting that John McCain had fathered a child in an adulterous relationship with a black woman (McCain and his wife have an adopted daughter from South Asia, whose photograph with her father was circulated in connection with these insinuations).

Second, Rove’s opponents would regularly find that they had suddenly become the target of a criminal investigation, and details concerning the investigation would be aggressively fanned to the press. Rove mastered this technique in a contest for the Texas Agriculture Commissioner’s post that he managed for now-Governor Rick Perry.

Third, and probably the most characteristic of the Rovian tools—“swiftboating.” Rove would cultivate groups which were arguably distant from the campaign proper which would run extremely well funded vitriolic ad hominem attacks on the adversary. The most vivid display of the technique, and indeed the case that produced a new verb for the English language, was the use of military veterans to attack John Kerry over his military record in Vietnam. For a candidate who abandoned his station as a Air National Guard Reservist, refusing to take a physical, and refusing combat service to launch a massive attack on a war hero with a silver star and host of other medals was, well, “audacious.” And ultimately very effective.

[...]

go to original for more information on the Siegelman Prosecution

Here's more information on the Siegelman case from 60 minutes:

Missing Emails

Why isn't Congress pressing Dick Cheney or the White House about this obvious and egregious breach of the public trust? Is our whole system of governance in the USA corrupted? What will it take to right the course of American Politics?

The Emails that Dick Cheney Deleted
No Comment
by Scott Horton
January 22, 2008

Late last week, right after official White House spokesmen made a series of either evasive or completely false statements about the mysterious case of the vanishing, then reappearing, then perhaps no really vanished White House emails, Henry Waxman and his Oversight Committee announced some of the conclusions they had reached. Dan Eggen and Elizabeth Williamson published an account of it on Friday in the Washington Post:

The White House possesses no archived e-mail messages for many of its component offices, including the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President, for hundreds of days between 2003 and 2005, according to the summary of an internal White House study that was disclosed yesterday by a congressional Democrat. The 2005 study — whose credibility the White House attacked this week — identified 473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices, said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

Waxman said he decided to release the summary after White House spokesman Tony Fratto said yesterday that there is “no evidence” that any White House e-mails from those years are missing. Fratto’s assertion “seems to be an unsubstantiated statement that has no relation to the facts they have shared with us,” Waxman said. The competing claims were the latest salvos in an escalating dispute over whether the Bush Administration has complied with long-standing statutory requirements to preserve official White House records — including those reflecting potentially sensitive policy discussions — for history and in case of any future legal demands.

Waxman said he is seeking testimony on the issue at a hearing next month from White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, National Archivist Allen Weinstein and Alan R. Swendiman, the politically appointed director of the Office of Administration, which produced the 2005 study at issue.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has now posted a series of studies to help us zero in on just what’s missing. It will come as no surprise to most that the big offender is the man at the center of the most virulent scandals, and the missing email traffic relates just to those dates in which a federal prosecutor would have the most interest. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office destroyed its emails, in violation of the requirements of the federal records act and potentially criminal law, for the following days:

September 12, 2003: The day on which the headlines in the New York Times read “federal appeals court in Washington yesterday rejected the Bush Administration’s effort to avoid releasing documents about Vice President Cheney Energy Task Force.”
...

read the rest: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002219

More Evidence of Bush Administration Loyalty to Large Corporations

There are so many examples to choose from when pleading the case that President Bush, his Administration, and associated interests favor the interests of large (particularly multi-national) corporations over the common interests of the American People and humanity (in general.) Let's take a look at an example of George W. Bush White House rhetoric on global warming as it relates to the energy industry:

by Christopher Brauchli
...
In a speech on September 29, 2000, relying on statistics furnished by the Greening Earth Society, a think tank financed by seven coal burning utilities, Mr. Bush said the Internet consumed 8 percent of all the electricity produced in the United States and, therefore, the country needed many new power plants including coal-fired generators. In June 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency put out a report that said human activities such as oil refining, power plants and cars are major contributors to global warming. When asked about the report Mr. Bush said dismissively: “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.” In Trenton, New Jersey on September 23, 2002 Mr. Bush said “we need an energy bill that encourages consumption.”
... [go to original]

The article (linked to above) also deals with how various other government agencies and entities relate to global warming. NASA chief Michael Griffin said that it was arrogant to assume that global warming would have harmful consequences for all humans. He supposes that there might be some benefit in global warming. I wonder what the many species of life that have gone extinct, and the many more that likely will go extinct because of global warming would say to Mr. Griffin if they could. Perhaps the NASA chief could use a primer in the ecological importance of bio-diversity and the interdependence of species upon each other across ecological systems.

from the article:

Mr. Bush still wants everything to be voluntary. He doesn’t want any fixed deadlines for reducing carbon emissions. James Connaughton, the White House environmental adviser said the Bush goal would be to get countries to set “aspirational goals.” “Each country will develop its own national strategies on a midterm basis in the next 10 to 20 years on where they want to take their efforts to . . . reduce air pollution and also reduce greenhouse gases, ” Mr. Connaughton said. Mr. Bush likes things that are aspirational rather than mandatory. It’s too bad he thinks that to have the air we aspirate be clean is nothing more than aspirational.

Oil Grabbing in Iraq

I've never handled crude oil, but I can imagine that it's slippery (though maybe it's more sticky...) Anyway, check out Antonia Juhasz's account of the power grab for control over the petroleum under the sands of Iraq:

go to original

Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?
by Antonia Juahsz, New York Times
March 13th, 2007

TODAY more than three-quarters of the world’s oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn’t always this way.

Until about 35 years ago, the world’s oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They are among the world’s largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.

Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.

The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.

The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.

The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.

The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.

Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.

Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.

Iraq’s five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.” They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.



Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group, is the author of “The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.”

Face Off in DC Over Iraq

go to original:

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington - The Democrats controlling Congress could have rushed the emergency war-funding bill they just voted to the president's desk, where a presidential veto is all but inevitable.

Instead, they're waiting until May 1 – the four-year anniversary of President Bush's "mission accomplished" speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

It's a signal of the drama about to unfold on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue as lawmakers and the White House figure out what to do after a veto. Increasingly, the most likely scenario looks like a high-stakes game of chicken where each side waits for the other to blink.

Mr. Bush says he wants a clean bill: no extra spending, no timetables or deadlines. Democrats, citing the 2006 elections, say they have a mandate to change direction in Iraq – and that the public will back them in a standoff with the White House over the war.

On Friday, the president invited lawmakers to the White House on May 2, after his veto, to discuss the "way forward." So far, neither side is disclosing negotiating points. But, in the run-up to an expected presidential veto, consensus is building around three approaches.
...
"It's a great bill. The president should read it and sign it," says Rep. John Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania, who chairs the House panel that drafts defense spending bills. A longtime strong supporter of the military, his repudiation of his 2002 vote supporting the use of force in Iraq gave a congressional face to the antiwar movement.
...
"If the president vetoes the emergency spending bill, he's the one who will be denying our troops funding and he's the one who will be denying the American people a path out of Iraq," says Sen. Joseph Biden (D) of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate.
...

Attack on Iran: Inevitable?

Several articles have been published recently in regard to the potential for military action against Iran. I received a letter from my Senator Patty Murray, which was all but gung ho about attacking Iran (Murray receives significant support from AIPAC.) Let me know if you want me to forward you a copy of this letter.

Amy Goodman published a conversation between Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter about White House plans for regime change in Iran. Ritter concludes that an attack is inevitable, and that within mere days of an attack we will all feel it in our pocketbooks.

And in today's New York Times there appears an important article By FLYNT LEVERETT and HILLARY MANN that highlights White House schizophrenia regarding the publication of information about the potential invasion of Iran. White House behavior regarding the redaction of much of this article is provocative and disturbing.

The potential for a military assault on Iran is real. I worry that the prospect of invading Iran is made more appealing by the failure in Iraq, i.e. - Iran may provide an escape route, a reason to flee Iraq.